Rocky Marciano is not a top ten all time heavyweight and I'll tell you why

[Humean]

no small feat. Still doesnt change the fact that in order to be an ATG you have to be able to compete across eras and I doubt he could compete past the 50s. TOO MUCH SKILL N SIZE

I don't think you necessarily have to compete beyond your era to be considered great, it depends on how you want to measure greatness as you can do that in many different ways. I do think that if you are the best of your era and Rocky was that, then you are certainly in the conversation as a great fighter. Jack Dempsey or Jack Johnson wouldn't stand much chance against later heavyweights, even accounting for size, but that doesn't mean they can't be seen as great. Also to rank Marciano down due to size is just unfair, in other weight classes when fighters get bigger they move into a higher weight class but in the heavyweights that is not possible. If it would be silly to rank a top lightweight lower because he cannot defeat a top middleweight then it is likewise silly to rank lower a 185-190 pound heavyweight like Marciano because he cannot defeat a 245 pound heavyweight like Lennox Lewis.

[juggernaut666]

In his prime he went years without even losing.

He was no giant but he was at least 3 inches taller with like 6" of reach on Marciano

obviously you dont know much about Jack Johnson. He beat the avoided black contenders of his day like Sam McVey, Kid Norfolk, Joe Jeannette, and Sam Langford.

These guys were top ten heavies a decade with no title shot. Also beat all the white hopes they could muster. You probably never researched any of them either

Most people agree that Johnson carried Ketchell but you notice as soon as Ketchel wacked him, he got his grill split and teeth knocked out seconds later.

Johnson had speed, movement and strength that would befuddle the Rock. Yes he beat Charles and the tricky Walcott but ended up just as beat up as they were and his face was a mess.


All Marciano had was a punchers chance and anyone who actually researches the sport knows that Johnson fought tougher competition than Marciano.

[therealpugilist]

I don't think you necessarily have to compete beyond your era to be considered great, it depends on how you want to measure greatness as you can do that in many different ways. I do think that if you are the best of your era and Rocky was that, then you are certainly in the conversation as a great fighter. Jack Dempsey or Jack Johnson wouldn't stand much chance against later heavyweights, even accounting for size, but that doesn't mean they can't be seen as great. Also to rank Marciano down due to size is just unfair, in other weight classes when fighters get bigger they move into a higher weight class but in the heavyweights that is not possible. If it would be silly to rank a top lightweight lower because he cannot defeat a top middleweight then it is likewise silly to rank lower a 185-190 pound heavyweight like Marciano because he cannot defeat a 245 pound heavyweight like Lennox Lewis.

there is a difference between being great or great in your era and an all time great

for example, Sergio Martinez was a great fighter in his era....at 154-160...do I think he is an all time great? no.....He would get blitzed in the 90s( Jones, Hopkins, Julian Jackson, Gerald McClellan, Toney and McCallum were all around)......also the 40s was deep....ezzard charles, holman williams, jack chase...he would probably be a perennial contender in some eras but not the champ.

I dont rank him low because of size....He lacked a good defense, he cut easy and he fought in a thin era...his size doesnt help his case.

[therealpugilist]

why are you deflecting....this is a Marciano thread.

That video did nothing to change how I feel about Johnson. There is footage of him, newspaper accounts and his opponent accounts


get over it...its just my opinion. You have yours, I have mine.


Jack Johnson was also greater than Marciano and his resume was better as well, as were his skills

[Humean]

there is a difference between being great or great in your era and an all time great

for example, Sergio Martinez was a great fighter in his era....at 154-160...do I think he is an all time great? no.....He would get blitzed in the 90s( Jones, Hopkins, Julian Jackson, Gerald McClellan, Toney and McCallum were all around)......also the 40s was deep....ezzard charles, holman williams, jack chase...he would probably be a perennial contender in some eras but not the champ.

I dont rank him low because of size....He lacked a good defense, he cut easy and he fought in a thin era...his size doesnt help his case.

Sergio Martinez will not go down as one of the top 10 fighters of the 2010s but Marciano was one of the top 10 fighters of the 1950s. Marciano's greatness relative to his own time is a lot greater than Martinez's in his time. Marciano had a lot of flaws but he was still the best heavyweight of the 50s and one of the best pound for pound of that decade.

[The Old LefHook]

Like the man said, Rocky would fight as a LH these days and would rehydrate back to 183 after making the weight. When you imagine him as a light heavy, things fall into their natural perspective. Sure, Rock could compete with the modern galoot heavies, and probably KO some of them, but put him at light heavy where he belongs and see what happens.

He has to fight Kovalev. No one with a brain believes Kovalev can hurt Rocky. We do not even know what kind of a punch it takes to hurt the Rock, because he was never hurt, even during his two knockdowns. But you can bet your life Rocky could KO Kovalev. I don't know if he would, but it seems probable that he would.

Even Foster's vaunted lefhook would not hurt Rocky at light heavy. Foster could not take a big heavyweight punch, and Rocky did have that. His inability to land it is what holds him back in mythical matchups against the galoot squad.

Plain and simple, you either have to be twice Rocky's size to beat him, or be a great runner like SRL. Welterweight Leonard would have a better chance of beatintg Rocky than Harry kid Matthews. Why--because Harry was a normal standup boxer, but SRL had the correct style. A style Duran could not catch up to, Rocky cannot catch, either. The other kind of movement is not enough against Rocky. Charles and Walcott used the same boxer/puncher style for Rocky. Against him, a counterunching style is not enough without a runners's legs. Overall, this is the most effective style in boxing-- you move just enough to make yourself hard to hit but stay relatively close. Not enough, not enough against Rocky.

Everyone has to make Rocky a top 5 all time P4P brawler. There is no use putting the Rock in with another brawler near his size. Being a top 5 brawler himself and maybe #1, he destroys that crowd rather easily.

It has to be a boxer, and not a normal boxer puncher with a style of Robinson or Walcott. It has to be a superbly talented runner.

The light heavyweight division just happens to have had a large number of talented fighters of this ilk, many as champions. Tunney, Slattery, Loughran, Rosenbloom, Conn, Charles, RJJ. Men like this have a chance to win a boring decision against Rock at LH. Can you imagine how slapsy Maxie's swats would feel to the Rock? It is comical. But slapsy could really move. Tunney and Conn would actually not provide boring fights.

When looking for light heavyweight opponents who might realistically beat Rock, you have to throw away a fantastic lineup of historic tough guys and boxer punchers right away. Anyone who does not move enough will not beat him at light heavyweight. Monsters like Foster and Galindez and Franklin and Spinks and Moore and Johnson and Delaney and Kovalev will all be destroyed by a man who took heavyweight punches easily and KO'd heavyweights easily.

The only guys at light heavy with a real chance against Rock are the runners. The more pure the runner, the better chance they have. I am not saying they have much of a chance, just a better chance than guys who think they are going to stand there and fight it out with Marciano.

That kind of puts it in perspective just how dominant Marciano was at his natural weight. They used to call that weight heavyweight, that is the only difference. Now they call it light heavyweight, the one he would have to slim down to and rehydrate back up a few pounds over, like everyone else these days.

I do not believe Marciano would be as dominant a force wearing pillows on his hands and only twelve round fights and grandma referees. With the small gloves he was much more dominant, and in 20 rounders would, of course, be even more dominant. Very few would have a chance against him at LH

[juggernaut666]

why are you deflecting....this is a Marciano thread.

That video did nothing to change how I feel about Johnson. There is footage of him, newspaper accounts and his opponent accounts


get over it...its just my opinion. You have yours, I have mine.


Jack Johnson was also greater than Marciano and his resume was better as well, as were his skills

you're obviously a fanboy..so as usual im aborting the thread before I really break it down...have a good one!

[Marchegiano]

1) Archie Moore was blitzed out by a novice for the vacant title. Floyd Patterson. He got him out of there way earlier than the Rock and also Moore went on to defend his 175 title. Moore was a great fighter, just not a great heavyweight. There is a difference. He and Charles turned pro as middleweights and Walcott a light heavyweight.

2) Jack Dempsey drew the color line. He deserves a mention but eliminating an entire race from title contention is held against him. Same goes for guys like John L Sullivan.

3) Once again Tunney was a great fighter, not a great Heavyweight and lost to a middleweight at 175...Greb

4) Rocky's best opponents were past prime and the contenders he beat were decent. they wouldnt be able to compete in the 60s

5)He lost to a smaller fighter as a novice, Joe Choynski. Choynski was a great fighter in his era and gave Johnson tutelage of the finer points of the game. Most people think Johnson carried Ketchell. Whether he did or he didnt , I dont know but he did blitz him and knock his teeth out seconds later


6) leave that nostalgia at home....idk how many bones he broke, he cant compete with guys like liston, foreman, frazier or holmes.

7) Marciano was a great fighter, but not an all time great HEAVYWEIGHT. TOO small and TOO crude,

8)Harry Kid Matthews was a good fight from middle to heavy but I doubt he'd be top ten in the 60s, 70,s 80s or today. he was good for his time.

9) How can you trash mu knowledge of the game but forget to mention Johnson beat Langforde, McVey, and Jeannete who could not get title shots so they fougth each other many times. They were all top heavyweights 10 years. Also Johnson beat all the best whites of the era.

10) get out of your emotions. its unbecoming

lol, Y'all like yer number yeah?

I responded directly to. Nothing I said makes any damn sense without the prompt. You just went on a loosely relative speech that could stand alone and make perfect sense as it's own bit. I can not for the life of me figure out how you reckon what you wrote is a direct response. indirect at best. What does MW and LHW and who started where have to do with prime? What does losing to Patterson have to do with ability? Nothing, you fail to make that connection. Not saying you couldn't because it's not there, just saying go on and explain how what weight a man started indicates prime and so on. Finish the connections. Ya get me?

1) I was specific, you can watch an old Moore, and you can watch a young Moore. What happened to Moore was skill caught up to him, not age. That happens later. Explain to me how losing to Rock or Patterson equates to slower reflexes. Losing and names doesn't allude to capability. I didn't ask if Moore lost since then, I asked what specifically can you even suggest he did worse against Marciano, just prior to Marciano, and just after Marciano than he had in his prime, and where would you place said prime? Is his prime where chronologically most men are at their fittest, or is his prime when he was performing at his best?

Here's something interesting; more than half the fighters Rocky faced retired within five fights of their fight claiming the injuries sustained during their Marciano fight limited their ability to perform. Moore went on an eleven fight win streak post Marciano and prior to Patterson. Then another twenty or so after Floyd. Then he loses and six fights later he loses again. The gap between the Marciano loss and the Chubby loss prior to Marciano is one of the biggest streaks in Moore's career. The gap between Marciano and Patterson is par for the course for Moore's career, but the gap between Rinaldi and Ali one of the smallest. Moore being at the height of his career, having the most success he's ever had is why Rocky fought Moore and not Valdes.

So claiming Moore's prime was anywhere but near the Marciano fight and claiming his prime is when he was picking up the most amount of Ls are one in the same and nothing more. I'm asking you to rationalize that because it seems pretty stupid to me.

2) Dunno what this has to do with LaStarza, or B-Hop or anything else I mentioned in the former 2. Are you sure you understand how this format works or are you just throwing numbers around willy nilly like?

Yeah, Jack drew the color line, and he and Tunney were awesome. My point wasn't to suggest they aren't great, my point was I never see anyone so ever seems to thinks a boxer from an era who wasn't champion was better than other champions from other eras. It seems to me y'all write your lists on the basis of who was the man at the time, not some much what feats did a person accomplish. The only way this is possible is ignorance. It's not in human nature to agree so much on the names that are being played with. You just don't have any clue who else you could possibly include.

for two reasons, you know you can front on doing proper research, but you and I both know what you've actually done, and that is next to ****. Pick up a phone and call people or don't even act like you and I are coming from equal pools of knowledge. I've read the article, read the book, read the newpaper, bothered the librarian, bothered record keepers, and bother authors. The internet has a lot, but your understanding of periods is shotty. Admit that yourself and you'll realize you only consider boxing history in the terms the media has given you. You know next to dick about ancient boxing, probably nothing about talhoffer and the middle ages, very little about BR and honor duels, nothing about the intermingling of swordplay, lots of assumptions about LPRR, weak on anything predating colored film. So my two reasons are a lack of research and a love for semantics. Once again, a name, a place, a date, a win, a loss, these things do not prove kinesiology or physics. The whole way the boxing historian rates is a failure, and for sale. HOF as something to do with reaction time? No, no it doesn't. It means sold very well and nothing else. That's what HOFs are for every industry. Resume proves chin? Nope. Is watching a video of a punch enough evidence to mathematically be sure of at least a range of power? damn skippy. The only reason why you argue about who beat who any how that proves greatness is because you have been told to. Mike Tyson didn't make a name off resume, that came, he made a name off performing feats. However his feats mean nothing to the boxing historian fan, only his resume and accolades. Nonsense.

3) Has absolutely **** all to do with duplication or ability. Yeah Tunney lost to Greb. Mind explain what the **** that has to do with any part of this conversation?


4) You don't even read do you? How the **** does Ali using LaStarza's and Walcott's methods in the 60s and 70s equate to "wouldn't work in the 60s?" in your head? What they did wouldn't work in the 60s but the guy I and most rate highest did it in the 60s. You are ****ing brilliant ain't cha?

5) In the last five I asked you when you'd claim Moore's prime is, but **** it right?

Johson, Joe, man...**** you. You didn't even get the god damned point when I spoke about Johnson. The point was how is it you reckon Johnson alone is an ATG? Doesn't him being an ATG require him to have beaten ATGs? It was me asking you how far you take this triangle resume semantics bull****, not me asking if you can ramble off a few loosely relative article headlines about stories every ****ing one of us know well. I'll say it again, you don't know why Johnson is an ATG, you don't know **** all about what makes a good resume in the late 19th and early 20th. Prove me wrong, or shut the **** up, but this loosely relative indirect response **** only makes me have to type more you ****.

[Marchegiano]

lol, Y'all like yer number yeah?

I responded directly to. Nothing I said makes any damn sense without the prompt. You just went on a loosely relative speech that could stand alone and make perfect sense as it's own bit. I can not for the life of me figure out how you reckon what you wrote is a direct response. indirect at best. What does MW and LHW and who started where have to do with prime? What does losing to Patterson have to do with ability? Nothing, you fail to make that connection. Not saying you couldn't because it's not there, just saying go on and explain how what weight a man started indicates prime and so on. Finish the connections. Ya get me?

1) I was specific, you can watch an old Moore, and you can watch a young Moore. What happened to Moore was skill caught up to him, not age. That happens later. Explain to me how losing to Rock or Patterson equates to slower reflexes. Losing and names doesn't allude to capability. I didn't ask if Moore lost since then, I asked what specifically can you even suggest he did worse against Marciano, just prior to Marciano, and just after Marciano than he had in his prime, and where would you place said prime? Is his prime where chronologically most men are at their fittest, or is his prime when he was performing at his best?

Here's something interesting; more than half the fighters Rocky faced retired within five fights of their fight claiming the injuries sustained during their Marciano fight limited their ability to perform. Moore went on an eleven fight win streak post Marciano and prior to Patterson. Then another twenty or so after Floyd. Then he loses and six fights later he loses again. The gap between the Marciano loss and the Chubby loss prior to Marciano is one of the biggest streaks in Moore's career. The gap between Marciano and Patterson is par for the course for Moore's career, but the gap between Rinaldi and Ali one of the smallest. Moore being at the height of his career, having the most success he's ever had is why Rocky fought Moore and not Valdes.

So claiming Moore's prime was anywhere but near the Marciano fight and claiming his prime is when he was picking up the most amount of Ls are one in the same and nothing more. I'm asking you to rationalize that because it seems pretty stupid to me.

2) Dunno what this has to do with LaStarza, or B-Hop or anything else I mentioned in the former 2. Are you sure you understand how this format works or are you just throwing numbers around willy nilly like?

Yeah, Jack drew the color line, and he and Tunney were awesome. My point wasn't to suggest they aren't great, my point was I never see anyone so ever seems to thinks a boxer from an era who wasn't champion was better than other champions from other eras. It seems to me y'all write your lists on the basis of who was the man at the time, not some much what feats did a person accomplish. The only way this is possible is ignorance. It's not in human nature to agree so much on the names that are being played with. You just don't have any clue who else you could possibly include.

for two reasons, you know you can front on doing proper research, but you and I both know what you've actually done, and that is next to ****. Pick up a phone and call people or don't even act like you and I are coming from equal pools of knowledge. I've read the article, read the book, read the newpaper, bothered the librarian, bothered record keepers, and bother authors. The internet has a lot, but your understanding of periods is shotty. Admit that yourself and you'll realize you only consider boxing history in the terms the media has given you. You know next to dick about ancient boxing, probably nothing about talhoffer and the middle ages, very little about BR and honor duels, nothing about the intermingling of swordplay, lots of assumptions about LPRR, weak on anything predating colored film. So my two reasons are a lack of research and a love for semantics. Once again, a name, a place, a date, a win, a loss, these things do not prove kinesiology or physics. The whole way the boxing historian rates is a failure, and for sale. HOF as something to do with reaction time? No, no it doesn't. It means sold very well and nothing else. That's what HOFs are for every industry. Resume proves chin? Nope. Is watching a video of a punch enough evidence to mathematically be sure of at least a range of power? damn skippy. The only reason why you argue about who beat who any how that proves greatness is because you have been told to. Mike Tyson didn't make a name off resume, that came, he made a name off performing feats. However his feats mean nothing to the boxing historian fan, only his resume and accolades. Nonsense.

3) Has absolutely **** all to do with duplication or ability. Yeah Tunney lost to Greb. Mind explain what the **** that has to do with any part of this conversation?


4) You don't even read do you? How the **** does Ali using LaStarza's and Walcott's methods in the 60s and 70s equate to "wouldn't work in the 60s?" in your head? What they did wouldn't work in the 60s but the guy I and most rate highest did it in the 60s. You are ****ing brilliant ain't cha?

5) In the last five I asked you when you'd claim Moore's prime is, but **** it right?

Johson, Joe, man...**** you. You didn't even get the god damned point when I spoke about Johnson. The point was how is it you reckon Johnson alone is an ATG? Doesn't him being an ATG require him to have beaten ATGs? It was me asking you how far you take this triangle resume semantics bull****, not me asking if you can ramble off a few loosely relative article headlines about stories every ****ing one of us know well. I'll say it again, you don't know why Johnson is an ATG, you don't know **** all about what makes a good resume in the late 19th and early 20th. Prove me wrong, or shut the **** up, but this loosely relative indirect response **** only makes me have to type more you ****.

6) What the **** does having more power have to do with nostalgia? Rocky Marciano broke people, if you can't think of a logical reason as to why the magical George Foreman has stronger bones than humanly possible you don't have an argument for that point. You're just being defensive at this point. Arguing because I came at you strong like. Quit being a *****.

7) Yeah, too small for what? I asked who covered more space, I asked who hit harder, I asked who was hit harder, and I got back "him too small, him too crude" I told you if you believe Marciano's crude you're buying into his game plan and supporter it by asking why do you think great movers like Charles just stood there and got back " But Foreman doe" are ****ing serious? Foreman, he's gonna move like Charles...right...he's done that ****ing ever...sure. So here's the probabilities boy-o, if Foreman, huge as he is, goes punch to punch with Marciano he's gonna lose because he doesn't hit as hard as Rock's taken and can't possibly simply eat the punches. If he tries to box Marciano he's gonna get baited into a punch to punch situation, better, more refined, boxers did. All yer gonna say is " But him big, but him skilled, but him fought Ali, but him beat Frasier" none of which changes or even addresses what I said. you're a moron.

8) I didn't ask you to restate what I already know you think. I asked you to justify your stance and supposed you couldn't because you lack depth in the 50s. If you think what you said leans more to the latter than former that's great for you. I'd say quite the opposite. Who didn't see a half-assed opinion with no mention of anything specific to support it coming? Was he a good fighter for MW-HW in the 50s? Justify that ****. Don't think I'll let you off just because you said some **** I'm likely to agree with. I didn't come at you the way I did because of yer opinion, but what supports it. I don't give a **** if you think Harry was good or ****. I want you to show some depth in 1950s boxing. I can wait while you research, we both know you need to.

9) Because nothing I said has anything to do with it? Because you missed the point. I'm telling you point blank no bull****, no hinting, I don't believe you are as knowledgeable of anything post Ali as you front like you are. Again, rambling off something that can be read online in an article headline, you wouldn't even need to read the damn thing, or some facts that you pulled from boxrec, does not equate to context and understanding.

I spoke about a lot of issues you completely ignored, and when you did address me more often then not you missed the point. I suggest you back and reread and rerespond to my original response again instead of continuing this. I will just repeat and rewash until my points are addressed anyway. You could have at least tackeled w-l ratio and how often people fought.

10) I don't give a rats ****ing ass. I honestly think I'm funny, and I do think the fact no one can say don ****ell's name here is a god damned sin against humanity. ****ing hate crime that is, init? Can't hear ****, can't read ****, **** mustn't ever be used ever. To hell with anyone who did big things named **** because stopping **** is totally more important than remembering ****ell right? Sorry UK, one of yer finest was named the wrong name so we've to obscure his name.

Unbecoming? Sure man, I'm a ****ing clown, dig it or don't, I'm also one the more historically versed boxing fans you're gonna find online and willing to speak with you. So if you don't care for the clown focus on the history bud. It's not meant to be like mean, there's a lot of ****s and stupid and whatnot, but it's meant to just be vulgar. Like a cranky old guy on a sitcom or some such. Because normal is pretty boring. you ****.

[Marchegiano]

lol, all this says to me is you guys lack the context to understand the visuals. It's revisionism sure, but it's poorly done too. Someone who understands modern boxing trying to use that knowledge to address historical boxing has a fundamental flaw and bias from the outset. What most fail to comprehend or even consider is the styles have more to do with ticket sales than any given technique or group of techniques one might call a skill set being useful.

Look up Daniel Mendoza and Mendoza School boxing. Inventor of making money off heat, defensive god father of the modern world of boxing, and the first person to charge a ticket for a seat at a sporting event. The Jew used antisemitism and refusal to engage as fuel for a fire that served to fill his wallet. Since then the trend of skills and when to apply them have had and will have more to do with what you want to see and what makes people money than safety, or effectiveness. Bradley v Provodnikov is a modern example of a boxer giving the fans what they want to see. Individualism, sure, but the same mentality is ripe in boxing as a whole. Of course a promoter wants the next Mike, and of course every fighter wants to be impressive, not just a winner. It's not an agreed upon thing nor a conspiracy, but from 1790 to 2016 you can safely say how they fought reflects more with what the fans wanted and less with their limitations or knowledge of the game. Daniel Mendoza wrote a whole book on how to cut the ring. They knew how to cut the ring when they where standing on the scratch pumbling each other, cutting the ring didn't pay bills for most. They didn't know how to cut and sell themselves at the same time in that climate.

Do you believe it's by chance Ali is defensive and inflammatory? Floyd? They're just Mendoza'ing the **** out of you. there is a reason why prize comes first in prizefighting.